Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the budget.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Whish-Wilson moving a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the budget.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, the suspension of standing orders has to be relevant to where we are at now, and we have gone back into a bill. I just advise you of that as you move into your remarks.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to clarify, Mr President. It was busy, but I was on my feet.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did see you rise to your feet at the prompting of your whip, after the Clerk started to call on the legislation, and there was time before that. So I think we are treating you very fairly in this instance.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, Mr President, because this is a very important subject. The day after the federal budget—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Senator Fifield?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my understanding is that we actually need to be between items in order to seek to move such a motion, and the Clerk had already called on the bill.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Fifield. I will go back to what I indicated earlier, Senator Whish-Wilson. You cannot move a suspension pursuant to contingent motion, but you can move a suspension of standing orders because leave was denied. You have used that provision to move a suspension of standing orders, but it must be relevant: you must explain why we need to have a suspension of standing orders at this particular juncture in relation to this bill.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill before us is about social security and young people, and my motion for a suspension of standing orders relates to the budget and the fact that the budget is screwing young Australians. This is a very important issue for a large proportion of our country and for future generations of our country, who rely on us to do our job in here today and make sure they get fair outcomes.

I know I also speak on behalf of all my party when I say that I got into politics to see change. I got into politics to come into this place to see reform, to shake the cage and to make sure that we get the big issues of our day—issues that are important to young Australians and issues that are important to all Australians—dealt with here in the Senate. There is no more important a time than budget day for a government to show its colours and how it is going to tackle the big issues of the day, because budget day is about the management of the economy and the money that we spend and about the decisions that we make on how that money is spent.

The budget yesterday treated problems like housing affordability as a political problem. The solutions that the Treasurer put forward yesterday were political solutions to an incredibly important issue for young Australians. Young Australians do not have the dream that we and previous generations in this country had of affordable housing. It is the single biggest issue. The single biggest issue leading into this budget two days ago, which has been building momentum over years of inaction from various governments, was around housing affordability in this country. That is not to mention the information that we had given to the media in weeks prior to this budget about cuts to higher education spending and more onerous conditions being put on university students to retire their debts earlier than before. If we want to incentivise young Australians to go on to tertiary education, why are we making it harder for them to get university degrees?

In my home state of Tasmania, we have this perverse situation where we have government funding to enhance the university and to turn the town I live in into a university town, yet we are actually making it harder for students to go to university and we are making it more onerous to retire their debts. We are asking these students, these young Australians, to seek higher education, to innovate and to deliver for the future of this country, but we are putting in place political roadblocks to housing affordability, which the government refuses to tackle. I counted 14 different initiatives in the budget speech last night relating to housing affordability, but none of them will tackle the structural issues that we know need to be changed, such as the perverse incentives like negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, the need to remove stamp duty and move to a broad-based land tax. These are the things that will actually tackle these problems. The Greens do not treat this as just a political problem; we treat this as a real problem for young Australians and low-income Australians right around this country. Those are the kinds of reforms we want to see.

We are pleased that at least in this budget the government has not just tried to raise revenue from the most vulnerable, which it has always targeted in its previous budgets. In saying that, we are still disgusted by some of the measures the government has in place to go after the most vulnerable, but at least it has made an effort to go after the big end of town. The Greens campaigned at the last three federal elections for a bank levy, and good on you for adopting our policy on a bank levy. In saying that, our levy would have raised twice as much. We also applaud you on adopting our policy on bank portability and on putting in place a new financial complaints body to replace the ombudsman. That is straight out of the Greens policy book. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. But why kick the can down the road on other important issues, like delaying the petroleum resource rent tax? Let us get on with some real reform in this country. Today is a day to debate this, especially for young Australians who worry about their future. We are here to make sure it is secure.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. As it is not a contingent motion, if you could provide a signed copy of the motion to the clerk at the table that would be appreciated.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to detain the Senate for very long. Senator Whish-Wilson, the government is very, very eager and happy to debate this budget, because this is a budget of which we are very, very proud. But I just make this point to you and to other colleagues: there is such a thing as the appropriate order of procedure. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to deliver his response to the budget and, as Senator Whish-Wilson and others would know, the sitting program for this week provides that tomorrow evening there is specific time allocated for party leaders and crossbench senators to make speeches in relation to the budget.

The bills, of course, are not even in this chamber. They will be in the chamber, and there will be a very thorough debate about the budget bills, no doubt, when the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and related bills are introduced. Of course, there are all the other opportunities—including, in particular, question time—for senators to ventilate issues arising from last night's budget. Senator Whish-Wilson, I do not want to be offensive, but I suspect that we have seen this morning just a little bit of grandstanding. You will have—every honourable senator will have—plenty of opportunity to debate the budget at the appropriate time and in the appropriate order provided for by the Senate program and, indeed, by the Senate standing orders. When that debate is engaged, the government is very, very, very eager to spruik from the rafters the virtues of this budget. But this morning, with a busy sitting program, and a lot of other legislation to be dealt with on the red, is not that time.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. We acknowledge that the budget is an important document and should allow, through the procedures of the Senate, for appropriate debate and discussion, but I agree with the Leader of the Government—this morning is not the appropriate time for that debate. The budget was handed down last night. The Leader of the Opposition will make a formal reply on Thursday evening, as is established practice across the parliament. There are also a variety of ways by which members and senators can raise concerns about the budget, debate the budget and draw attention to particular elements of the budget that they may be concerned about. Those are well known—question time, the MPI and senators' statements. In the next couple of weeks we will have estimates, which will allow a thorough examination of the budget, and then we will have the debate on the bills when they come for debate as well.

So there are many ways that we will debate the key issues in the budget, and Labor will certainly be engaging in that very vigorously. There are concerns that we have raised overnight about the tax cuts for millionaires whilst having a tax hike for every working Australian. We are concerned that those who can afford to contribute are getting a tax break, while those who are doing it pretty tough—I think we have all acknowledged that—are having to pay more. So there are really big, national debates that we need to be talking about through this budget. We know that there are hidden nasties in this budget that may not have formed part of the Treasurer's speech last night but will be examined closely over the next few days, including keeping the pension age at 70, new cuts to family payments and to veterans health and the abolition of the energy supplement. At the same time the government is trying to say that pensioners are getting a better deal through a one-off payment, but not saying that they are actually going to lose substantial amounts—four times as much—through the abolition of the energy supplement.

So there are very specific details of this budget which we need to go through and examine closely, but I am not entirely clear why the Greens have chosen this mechanism today, when we have a full program in front of us. We have already had a truncated week, in the sense that we did not have Monday to deal with legislation. There is not a lot of time to progress through the program that is already before us. We have two sitting weeks in June to deal with a lot of legislation, so any attempt to have a long debate on the budget that was handed down last night, prior to a formal response from the Leader of the Opposition, seems to me to be merely attempting to frustrate the program rather than engage in legitimate and detailed discussions on last night's budget. For those reasons, Labor will not be supporting the Greens today.

We would encourage them to use the other established mechanisms in the Senate to raise their concerns and to do so today if they choose to. But the program in front of us this morning, including the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016, followed by the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 and several other bills, only really gives about 2½ hours for the legislation program this morning. I am not discounting the need to debate the budget or the fact that those questions need to be considered and are of national importance. I know there will be areas where we will agree with the Greens on concerns and areas we do not, but this morning is not the right time for that. We need to get to the program and allow the other established ways for discussing, examining and debating the budget to be observed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason that the Greens are moving the suspension of this particular bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016, is that this bill was a warm-up to the attack on young people. What happened to the days when Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister swaggered around in his leather jacket? He has swapped the leather jacket for the Tony Abbott blue tie. He has no care at all for the future of young people in this country, and this pathways bill is an attack on young people. Do you know what it does? It sets up an entire group of young people as a team of slaves to corporate Australia. It says: 'Here is cheap labour and free labour. Work these young people into the ground and we will give you a tick and a flick from the government.' This is the first attempt of the massive attack on young people coming down the line from this government.

What did we see come out of the budget last night? We saw more assaults on young people across this country. We saw a $3.8 billion cut to university education. This, again, is from a Prime Minister who talks about wanting to be the Prime Minister of innovation and of having a future where we are a clever and smart country. Well, no. He is going to drive down the quality of education in this country through these cuts, making it harder for young people to get a university education and harder for them to pay off their debt at the end. Meanwhile, of course, the government is doing nothing, absolutely zilch, zero when it comes to tackling housing affordability and living costs. This government cares a lot about corporate Australia and a lot about wealthy Australians and does not give two hoots about young people. It does not give two hoots about their education. It does not give two hoots about the future of the country for them and what kind of future they are going to have in terms of the health of the planet.

Of course, climate change was not in the budget. It was like the government just searched for the term 'climate change' and pressed delete. It was deleted from the budget in its totality. This is from the Prime Minister who said he wanted to tackle some of the biggest issues facing not just Australia but the globe, and yet he has squibbed it over and over again.

There are some nice, fluffy things in the budget, of course. There is the bank levy, which is good. We give that a tick. Whatever. But of course the Prime Minister had to come up with a nasty sting in the tail to satisfy those grumps on his backbench—the Tony Abbotts of the world. The former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is still barking away in the background. So what has the Prime Minister done? He has decided to make life tough for young Australians and students. There had to be a nasty sting in the tail, and it ended up being for young people.

This bill is directly linked to the assault on young people in the budget. It is the warm-up. So not only are we going to blame and punish young people now for being unemployed; we are going to then start funnelling them into being trainees and interns where they are not going to get paid proper wages. Do you know that this bill says that young people can be paid $7.60 an hour? That is the equivalent wage. It is disgusting. That is slave labour in this country, and this government should be ashamed of it.

The government is saying to young people that it is their fault they are unemployed and they are going to be punished because we have a massively high unemployment rate. In my home state of South Australia, which has the highest unemployment rate for young people in the country, where are the projects to build jobs for young people? They just do not exist. Young people are being punished for the fact that we have low jobs growth in this country, and now it is going to be much more difficult for them to even get an education and to retrain to get into the jobs of the future.

This government does not give a damn about young people. Malcolm Turnbull has given up on the future generations of this nation. He has given up on tackling climate change, which of course young people are very concerned about. He has given up on investing in our education system, which of course is very important to young people right across this country. Then he says, 'While we're doing all that, you're in trouble because you don't have a job. We'll step on you while you're already down. Then, if you're lucky enough, we'll put you into an internship and you'll get paid $7.60 an hour'—for slave labour! It is absolutely disgusting. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Colleagues, I think what we are witnessing here today is something that has become a bit of a post-budget ritual on the part of the Australian Greens—that is, on the Wednesday morning after the budget, when we have limited government business time and an agenda that has already been set, the Greens seek to move a suspension of standing orders to move a motion to address whatever the theme is they wish to prosecute about the budget. I say it is a bit of a ritual; I will not go so far as to say it is a tradition, because that might imply that it is something that will or should become a regular part of the proceedings of this place. It should not, because there are many established forms in this place for colleagues to put their views on the budget.

As the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated, on Thursday night there is an occasion for budget reply speeches from minor parties and Independents. I am sure my colleagues in the Greens will take that opportunity. Obviously, there is the forum of question time, where colleagues around the chamber will talk about those things and put questions about those things that they think are good, bad or indifferent about the budget. We will have the appropriation bills themselves, which provide ample opportunity for colleagues to talk about the budget. Then there will be the bills giving effect to the individual budget measures that require legislation to establish them. Again, that will be an opportunity for colleagues to put their views. Not to mention, I would hazard a guess that some of the legislation related to individual budget measures may well find itself referred to Senate legislation committees. Again, that provides colleagues with a good opportunity to take advantage of.

We do have a limited amount of government business time in budget week. Obviously, we do not sit on the Monday. Yesterday we had some time; today there is not a lot; tomorrow there is even less. So, as much as I appreciate the ritual that my colleagues in the Greens are undertaking here this morning, as we do have limited government business time, I do not think they have made the case for a suspension of standing orders in order to move their motion. I know they are shocked about that. I would hope that the chamber as a whole would agree with me. I have a suspicion that the chamber might. But, as I started, let me indicate that I do not think that this ritual should change into being a tradition. It is not something that assists the orderly conduct of the business in this place. There is a lot of opportunity, as I have said, for colleagues to put their views forward, to air issues.

In voting against this motion to suspend standing orders, we as a government are not in any way, shape or form seeking to deny the opportunity to examine, to explore and to debate measures in the budget. But what this chamber needs to do is strike a balance between, on the one hand, transacting in a good and orderly way the business that is laid out on the program and, on the other hand, taking the opportunity of the many avenues and forums that will be available to colleagues over the weeks ahead to address the budget and to put their views forward.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps if the government were not handing down such bad budgets we would not need to be trying to bring this issue on for immediate debate so that we can have a strong focus immediately after the government put down these budgets that hurt vulnerable people, that hurt young people, who are some of the most vulnerable members of our community and becoming more vulnerable because of the government's consistent attack on young people. The PaTH bill is actually a result of past poor budget measures that we are debating now that further do over young people. I made a contribution in the second reading debate on PaTH, where I clearly articulated the deep concerns the Greens have about the PaTH bill. And what does the government do now through the budget? They layer on more bad measures that impact on, in particular, vulnerable people. They continue the attack. They just cannot help themselves. And now we are sinking to new lows with the measures that are in this budget, which will significantly further impact on young people. Why are we so concerned that they are being screwed over? Because they are; they are being left behind.

My colleague Senator Hanson-Young articulated the number of young people who are unemployed in her home state of South Australia and also in my home state of Western Australia. There is an increasingly high number of unemployed young people, particularly in some key areas around Western Australia. And the minister says, 'You've got question time.' Well, question time might be useful if they actually answered the questions. But they do not answer the questions. So stop saying, 'You'll get plenty of time in question time.' If you genuinely answered the questions, I would be right with you guys. If you bring in a new process of answering the questions fairly, honestly and correctly—

Senator Duniam interjecting—

No they don't. I will take that interjection by Senator Duniam. He said they do. Sorry, no you don't. Sometimes they cannot answer the questions—they honestly say that—but most of the time they do not even answer the question that you ask; they answer the question that they wished you had asked or dorothy dixers by a member of their own side. Sorry, it just does not cut it that we can use question time for that. I will take the minister up on his offer this question time and I will expect proper, fulsome and correct answers to the questions that are asked.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

You just want to reignite that again, Senator Brandis.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Come on!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the chair, Senator Siewert.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr President. I think there would be general agreement in this place that question time could do with some improvement—

An honourable senator interjecting—

to the whole process—so to use that as an excuse is, I think, pretty poor. I do not mean to reflect on the minister, but it is a poor reason for not debating this particular issue now.

I want to get back to some of the measures in the budget that are really hitting a new low for the government and in fact set some very dangerous precedents for where they are going, particularly in the portfolio areas I have responsibility for in terms of income support and family and community services. They are going to bring in drug testing for new recipients. They have extended the cashless welfare card. They have extended the waiting period for income support, which will dramatically impact on some people. They continue the punitive approach that has been a consistent measure through the budgets since that punitive 2014 budget. Yes, they have got rid of some of those zombie measures, but they have replaced them with their own zombie measures which pick on young people in particular at just the moment when we need to be taking a much more supportive approach that does not mark the rest of their lives. A poor experience through the income support system at those times when they need that vital support will mark their engagement with the system for the rest of their lives. That is why it is urgent that we address this issue now. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We make no apologies for seeking to suspend standing orders this morning to debate the budget, because this is less a federal budget than it is a blueprint for ongoing intergenerational theft in this country. Make no mistake, this budget continues to rob from the future to pay for today, and of course it is young Australians who will overwhelmingly bear the brunt. This budget continues to shaft young Australians. It continues to shaft them around uneven and inequitable wealth distribution and it continues to shaft them around inequitable property ownership opportunities in this country—and the great public policy challenge of our time, which is climate change, barely rates a mention in this budget. It is fiddling at the margins on things like housing affordability, while the big levers, like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, continue to gather cobwebs.

It punishes young people for not having a job—these jobs that are so scarce. There are not enough jobs in our country for everyone, and many people who are working do not feel they have enough job opportunities. But instead of helping them it seeks to punish them, and it punishes the most vulnerable jobseekers, many of whom have health issues around drug and alcohol addiction. Well, what about a breathalyser on the front door of this place where, if you blow over 0.05, you actually cannot come in here and vote? But we are, of course, not going to have that. We are going to pick on the vulnerable and pick on the marginalised and then, if they do fail these tests—which I might add are the result of profiling, through the Department of Social Security—we are not going to help them but instead are going to punish them further by putting them on the cashless card. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Whish-Wilson to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to the motion on the suspension of standing orders, the bill had been called upon, so I invite Senator Hanson-Young, if she wishes, to move her second reading amendment to the bill.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the motion as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to cap the fortnightly hours of the PaTH program at 30 to ensure participants in the program are receiving the minimum wage for the hours of work undertaken.".

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.